On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:47 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Do you mean that in theory > a platform's PRId64 could be something other than "l" or "ll"?
Yes. I don't know why anyone would do that, and the systems I checked all have the obvious definitions, eg "ld", "lld" etc. Perhaps it's an acceptable risk? It certainly gives us a tidier result. For discussion, here is a variant that fully embraces <inttypes.h> and the PRI*64 macros.
v2-0001-Use-int64_t-support-from-stdint.h-and-inttypes.h.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0002-Remove-traces-of-BeOS.patch
Description: Binary data
